APHC010053342021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3410/2021 Between: 1. TOKURI NAGESWARA RAO,, S/O LATE VENKATESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, APEPDCL, R/O DUGGIRALA VILLAGE, PEDAVEGI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ELURU 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ELURU DIVISION, ELURU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, KAMAVARAPUKOTA, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. THE SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT KAMAVARAPUKOTA KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 7. TOKURI SUNIL, S/O. RAJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, EMPLOYEE IN AP GRAMA - WARD SACHIVALAYAM, R/O. 2 KOTHURU, H/O KAMAVARAPUKOTA VILLAGE, KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 8. TOKURI RAJA RAO, , S/O. PEDA VEERAYYA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, GRAVEL BUSINESSMEN, R/O. KOTHURU, H/O KAMAVARAPUKOTA VILLAGE, KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 9. TOKURI BABURAO, S/O. LATE SHESSAYYA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTHURU, H/O KAMAVARAPUKOTA VILLAGE, KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 10. TOKURI CHINA DHARMA RAO, S/O LATE CHINA MAHALAKSHMUDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTHURU, H/O KAMAVARAPUKOTA VILLAGE, KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 11. TOKURI SUNEETHA, W/O LATE LAKHSMANA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, EMPLOYEE IN POSTAL DEPT, R/ O. KOTHURU, H/O KAMAVARAPUKOTA VILLAGE, KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 12. SAKA SATYAVATHI, W/O LATE VENKATESWARARAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. KOTHURU, H/O KAMAVARAPUKOTA VILLAGE, KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the Official Respondents herein as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice in not initiating action on the Petitioners Spandana Petition WG20200120643 dated 20.01.2020 for eviction of illegal and unlawful encroachments and demolition of illegal constructions made on Grama Panchayat road covered under Gramakantam land in R.S. No. 718/2 of Kamavaraukota village and consequently direct the Official Respondents herein to initiate action for eviction of illegal and unlawful encroachments and to demolish the illegal constructions made on Grama Panchayat road land for free movement of petitioner's family, villagers and school children and pass 3 IA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Official Respondents herein to initiate action for eviction of illegal and unlawful encroachments by demolishing the illegal constructions made on Grama Panchayat road covered under Gramakantam land situated in R.S. No.718/2 of Kamavaraukota village as per the proceedings dated 24.01.2020 of the 6th Respondent for free movement of petitioner's family, villagers and school children pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R ANNAPURNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. P B NARASIMHA MURTY 4. Y KOTESWARA RAO The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Smt R.Annaupurna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the respondents 1 and 3, Ms. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 2, 4 and 5, Ms. Ch. Anupama, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for the 6th respondent and Sri P.Shiva Prasad, learned counsel representing Sri P.B.Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondents 7 to 12. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the inaction of the official respondents in initiating action, in pursuance of a Spandana Petition made by the petitioner vide Application No.WEG20200120643 dated 20.01.2020 4 (Ex.P1), regarding the encroachments made by the unofficial respondents in R.S.No.718/2 of Kamavaraukota Village, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner, along with his family, has been residing in a structure bearing D.No.11-83, Gramakantam land in R.S.No.718/2 of Kothuru Village of Kamavarapukota Gram Panchayat. On the southern side of the petitioner’s house, a road exists with a width of 9 feet, which connects further to the Eluru – Jangareddygudem main road. The respondents 7 and 8 encroached upon the internal roads and made constructions, and hence, the petitioner made a complaint in the grievance cell before the 2nd respondent referred supra; however, the grievance of the petitioner was not redressed. 4. Learned counsel would further submit that in fact, in pursuance of the complaint, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution dated 10.02.2020 (Ex.P5) to conduct a survey, and thereafter, the 5th respondent – Tahsildar issued an endorsement dated 20.08.2020 (Ex.P7). Learned counsel would contend that the grievance of the petitioner dated 20.01.2020 (Ex.P1) was not effectively attended to and hence, the writ petition was filed. 5. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the 6th respondent, contending, inter alia, that the Panchayat Secretary, along with the revenue authorities, visited the road and verified the records. Upon such verification, they found that a Katcha road is in existence and there are no encroachments as alleged by the petitioner. There are no records indicating the width of the road. The authority will proceed further as per the rules to develop the said road, upon availability of the funds. 6. The 7th respondent filed a separate counter-affidavit. In paras paragraphs 6 and 7, it was contended that civil disputes exist between the petitioner on one hand and the respondents on the other. 5 7. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner made a complaint dated 20.01.2020 (Ex.P1). In pursuance of the said complaint, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution dated 10.02.2020 (Ex.P5). Thereafter, the notices were issued by the Panchayat Secretary to conduct a survey Ex.P6. Subsequently, the 5th respondent – Tahsildar issued an endorsement vide FL.No.EL/5573/2020 dated 20.08.2020 (Ex.P7). A perusal of the endorsement would disclose that the authority could not conduct any survey since the land is classified as Gramakantam land. The petitioner did not challenge the endorsement issued by the authority. In fact, as noted supra, the grievance of the petitioner was attended to, and the endorsement dated 20.08.2020 (Ex.P7) was issued. If the petitioner is aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had to challenge the endorsement. 8. The relief sought in the writ petition, in the considered opinion of this Court, vis-à-vis the initiation of any action pursuant to the Spandana Petition dated 20.01.2020 (Ex.P1) was worked out. 9. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this order will not preclude the petitioner from challenging the endorsement dated 20.08.2020 (Ex.P7) or to take further steps in accordance with the law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 17.02.2026 SNI 6 254 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.3410 OF 2021 Dated: 17.02.2026 SNI